Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Vijendra Kumar vs New Delhi Municipal Council on 8 May, 2019

                                के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                             बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                      Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/NDMCN/A/2017/185446

Shri Virender Kumar                                         ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS
                                     बनाम

PIO, Executive Engineer (Auto)                        ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
NDMC, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi
Through: Sh. Rakesh Sharma, Sh. Arvind Kr.
Vashishth and Sh. Rishi Kumar

Date of Hearing                      :   03.05.2019
Date of Decision                     :
Information Commissioner             :   Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on             :   23.05.2017
PIO replied on                       :   04.07.2017
First Appeal filed on                :   10.09.2017
First Appellate Order on             :   Nil
2ndAppeal/complaint received on      :   22.12.2017


Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.05.2017, seeking information on four points:-

1. Inform the procedure for allotment of staff car/vehicle to a serving municipal officer by name.

2. Inform as to whether a staff car/vehicle can be allotted to any serving municipal officer by name without a requesting from him as per rules

3. Provide authenticated copy of requisition against which any vehicle have issued to undersigned.

4. If yes, please give the authenticated copy of the orders along with relevant record on the basis of which recovery has been made of transport and conveyance allowance of undersigned.

PIO/NDMC (Auto workshop), vide letter dated 04.07.2017 provided point wise reply to the appellant.

Dissatisfied with the information received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 10.09.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from FAA, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Only the respondents are present for hearing, while the appellant has not appeared despite service of advance hearing notice. Respondent has submitted a written note apprising the Commission that the case arises out of a dispute regarding deduction of conveyance/transport allowance from the appellant by the Accounts branch at the recommendation of the Vigilance department while being posted as Executive Engineer in NDMC. The submissions of the respondent further reveal that the appellant has been filing repeated RTI applications and has even approached the Central Administrative Tribunal on the same issue. It is worthwhile to note that similar information had been furnished to him vide response dated 17.12.2013 also.

Decision After perusal of the submissions placed by the PIO, the Commission notes that a substantial reply has already been furnished by the PIO. Appellant is not present to argue his case. It is noted that failure on the part of the FAA, in adjudicating the First Appeal has led to the filing of this appeal. Hence, the instant appeal is remanded to the FAA-Director, Transport-Sh. V K Gautam, to adjudicate the First Appeal and pass a reasoned order, after hearing the concerned parties. Compliance report indicating the outcome of the hearing/adjudication of the First Appeal shall be submitted by the respondent by 06.06.2019.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 2 of 2